# US 2017/0286258 A1 · Identifying false positive automated tests > Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt - Number: US 2017/0286258 A1 - Document ID: US20170286258A1 - Status: Published application - Kind: A1 - Application number: 15/085,272 - Filed: 2016-03-30 - Published: 2017-10-05 - Earliest claimed: 2016-03-30 - Assignees: International Business Machines Corporation - Applicants: International Business Machines Corporation - Inventors: Adam P. Coulthard; Neil W. Leedham; Mark A. Woolley; Andy Wright - Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US20170286258A1 ## CPC - G06F 11/3608: {using formal methods, e.g. model checking, abstract interpretation (theorem proving G06N5/013)} - G06F 11/368: {for test version control, e.g. updating test cases to a new software version} - G06F 11/3684: {for test design, e.g. generating new test cases} - G06F 11/3688: {for test execution, e.g. scheduling of test suites} - G06F 11/3692: {for test results analysis} - G06F 11/3698: Environments for analysis, debugging or testing of software - G06F: ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING (computer systems based on specific computational models G06N) ## Abstract Technical solutions are described for identifying false positive tests. An example method includes receiving an input identifying a defect in a portion of a product code. The method also includes identifying a first automated test that is associated with the portion of the product code. The method also includes lowering a first test confidence value that is associated with the first automated test by a predetermined amount in response to the first automated test being a passing test. The method also includes marking the first automated test as a false positive test. ## Claims ### Claim 1 A computer implemented method for identifying false positive tests, the method implemented by a processor, and the method comprising: receiving an input identifying a defect in a portion of a product code; identifying a first automated test that is associated with the portion of the product code; lowering a first test confidence value that is associated with the first automated test by a predetermined amount in response to the first automated test being a passing test; and marking the first automated test as a false positive test. ### Claim 2 (depends on 1) The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first automated test is based on a relatedness network that records a relationship between the first automated test and the portion of the product code. ### Claim 3 (depends on 2) The computer implemented method of claim 2, further comprising, maintaining the relatedness network, wherein the maintaining comprises: in response to a change to the portion of the product code, identifying the first automated test as being related to the portion of the product code based on metadata associated with the portion of the product code and the first automated test. ### Claim 4 (depends on 3) The computer implemented method of claim 3, wherein the portion of the product code and the first automated test are identified as being related in response to a corresponding timestamp-difference being less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the timestamp-difference is computed based on a timestamp associated with the portion of the product code and a timestamp associated with the first automated test. ### Claim 5 (depends on 1) The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined amount is a first predetermined amount, and the method further comprising: identifying a second automated test that is related to the first automated test; lowering a second test confidence value that is associated with the second automated test by a second predetermined amount; and in response to the second test confidence value being lower than a predetermined threshold, marking the second automated test as a false positive test. ### Claim 6 (depends on 5) The computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein identifying the second automated test is based on a relatedness network that records a relationship between the first automated test and the second automated test. ### Claim 7 (depends on 6) The computer implemented method of claim 6, further comprising, maintaining the relatedness network, wherein the maintaining comprises: in response to a change to test code, identifying the first automated test as being related to the second automated test based on metadata associated with the first automated test and the second automated test. ### Claim 8 (depends on 5) The computer implemented method of claim 5, wherein the second automated test is identified as being related to the first automated test based on the first automated test and the second automated test being associated to said portion of the product code. ### Claim 9 (depends on 1) The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: executing the first automated test periodically; in response to the first automated test passing for at least a predetermined number of times and the portion of the product code being changed, lowering the first test confidence value of the first automated test by the predetermined amount; and in response to the first test confidence value being lower than a predetermined threshold, marking the first automated test as a false positive test. ### Claim 10 A system for identifying false positive tests, the system comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to: receive an input identifying a defect in a portion of a product code; identify a first automated test that is associated with the portion of the product code; lower a first test confidence value that is associated with the first automated test by a predetermined amount in response to the first automated test being a passing test; and mark the first automated test as a false positive test. ### Claim 11 (depends on 10) The system of claim 10, wherein identification of the first automated test is based on a relatedness network that records a relationship between the first automated test and the portion of the product code. ### Claim 12 (depends on 11) The system of claim 11, wherein the portion of the product code and the first automated test are identified as being related in response to a corresponding timestamp-difference being less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the timestamp-difference is computed based on a timestamp associated with the portion of the product code and a timestamp associated with the first automated test. ### Claim 13 (depends on 10) The system of claim 10, wherein the predetermined amount is a first predetermined amount, and the processor is further configured to: identify a second automated test that is related to the first automated test; lower a second test confidence value that is associated with the second automated test by a second predetermined amount; and in response to the second test confidence value being lower than a predetermined threshold, mark the second automated test as a false positive test. ### Claim 14 (depends on 13) The system of claim 13, wherein the second automated test is identified as being related to the first automated test based on the first automated test and the second automated test being associated to said portion of the product code. ### Claim 15 (depends on 10) The system of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to: execute the first automated test periodically; lower the first test confidence value of the first automated test by the predetermined amount, in response to the first automated test passing for at least a predetermined number of times and the portion of the product code being changed; and mark the first automated test as a false positive test, in response to the first test confidence value being lower than a predetermined threshold. ### Claim 16 A computer program product for identifying false positive tests, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium, the computer readable storage medium comprising computer executable instructions, wherein the computer readable storage medium comprises instructions to: receive an input identifying a defect in a portion of a product code; identify a first automated test that is associated with the portion of the product code; lower a first test confidence value that is associated with the first automated test by a predetermined amount in response to the first automated test being a passing test; and mark the first automated test as a false positive test. ### Claim 17 (depends on 16) The computer program product of claim 16, wherein identification of the first automated test is based on a relatedness network that records a relationship between the first automated test and the portion of the product code. ### Claim 18 (depends on 17) The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the portion of the product code and the first automated test are identified as being related in response to a corresponding timestamp-difference being less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the timestamp-difference is computed based on a timestamp associated with the portion of the product code and a timestamp associated with the first automated test. ### Claim 19 (depends on 16) The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the predetermined amount is a first predetermined amount, and the computer readable storage medium further comprises instructions to: identify a second automated test that is related to the first automated test; lower a second test confidence value that is associated with the second automated test by a second predetermined amount; and mark the second automated test as a false positive test, in response to the second test confidence value being lower than a predetermined threshold. ### Claim 20 (depends on 16) The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the computer readable storage medium further comprises instructions to: execute the first automated test periodically; lower the first test confidence value of the first automated test by the predetermined amount, in response to the first automated test passing for at least a predetermined number of times and the portion of the product code being changed; and mark the first automated test as a false positive test, in response to the first test confidence value being lower than a predetermined threshold.